SPECIES Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation (907) 465-4190 – PO Box 115526 MANAGEMENT REPORT Juneau, AK 99811-5526

CHAPTER 23: MANAGEMENT REPORT From: 1 July 2011 To: 30 June 20131

LOCATION 2 GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT: 20B (9,196 mi )

GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION: Drainages into the north bank of the Tanana River between Delta Creek and Manley Hot Springs

BACKGROUND Moose numbers increased in Unit 20B throughout the 1950s and early 1960s after extensive wildfires improved moose habitat and federal predator reduction programs reduced wolf predation on moose (McNay 1992). Moose numbers declined following severe winters in 1965, 1970, 1971, and 1974. Increasing wolf predation and liberal either-sex seasons contributed to the moose population decline. By 1976 moose densities were low, and the hunting season had been reduced to 10 days for bulls only in most of Unit 20B. Moose populations again increased following wolf reduction programs during 1980–1986. Moose hunting seasons were extended from 10 days in 1981 and 1982 to 20 days during 1983–1987. Subsequent increases in harvest along with declining bull:cow ratios and evidence of low recruitment in some areas resulted in hunting seasons being shortened to 15 days in 1988. Despite this 5-day reduction in the season, harvests increased further from nearly 400 bulls in 1988 to more than 700 bulls in 1998. Moose population trends from the late 1980s through the 1990s were largely unknown because unitwide surveys were not conducted. However, unitwide surveys conducted in 2001, 2003–2006, 2008, and 2009 indicated that the moose population increased from an estimated 9,800 (about 1.1 moose/mi2) in 1990 to a peak of about 20,000 (about 2.2 moose/mi2) in 2009.

Demand for moose hunting opportunities in Unit 20B is high. Extensive road and trail systems provide overland access, and numerous waterways such as the Tolovana, Tatalina, Chatanika, Goldstream, Salcha, and Chena rivers provide boat access.

Both general season and permit hunts are available to meet the demand to harvest moose in Unit 20B. Many of the permit hunts are available only to resident hunters. Fifty-eight permit hunts were available to hunt moose in Unit 20B during RY11 and RY12: 2 hunts for “any moose” and 56 hunts for “antlerless moose” (i.e., 1 in the Fairbanks management area [FMA] by

1 At the discretion of the reporting biologist, this unit report may contain data collected outside the report period.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-1 bow and arrow, 1 in the Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge [Creamer’s Refuge] within FMA by muzzleloader, and 56 in central and western Unit 20B outside FMA).

The Minto Flats management area (MFMA) was established in 1979 to restrict harvest in a low-density moose population. In 1988 the Alaska legislature established the Minto Flats State Game Refuge to ensure the protection and enhancement of habitat and the conservation of fish and wildlife; and to guarantee the continuation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other compatible public uses within approximately 900 mi2 of the Minto Flats area.

FMA was established in 1983 to provide moose hunting opportunities around the Fairbanks urban area by bow and arrow only. This area was closed to hunting in the late 1970s and early 1980s to prevent excessive harvest. Boundaries of FMA changed numerous times. The most recent changes went into effect in July 2004. FMA currently encompasses about 300 mi2, about 50 mi2 of which have a relatively dense human population. Even though harvest is generally low, this permit hunt for antlerless moose is popular.

For management purposes, Unit 20B is divided into 3 geographic zones: 1) western Unit 20B (2,942 mi2), including the Minto Flats, Tatalina Creek drainage, Tolovana River drainage, and areas farther west; 2) eastern Unit 20B (2,425 mi2) including the Little Salcha and Salcha river drainages; and 3) central Unit 20B (3,829 mi2), the remainder.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION MANAGEMENT GOALS  Protect, maintain, and enhance the moose population and its habitat in concert with other components of the ecosystem.

 Provide for continued subsistence use of moose by Alaska residents who have customarily and traditionally used the population.

 Provide the greatest sustained opportunity to participate in hunting moose.

 Provide an opportunity to view and photograph moose.

 Protect human life and property in human–moose interactions.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE  Manage for a posthunting sex ratio of ≥30 bulls:100 cows unitwide and ≥20 bulls:100 cows in each count area (i.e., eastern Unit 20B, central Unit 20B, western Unit 20B, and MFMA).

In addition to our management objective, Alaska Administrative Code 92.108 identifies the Unit 20B moose population as important for providing high levels of harvest for human consumptive use, and established intensive management population and harvest objectives of 12,000–15,000 and 600–1,500 moose, respectively.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-2 METHODS POPULATION STATUS AND TREND Weather and snow conditions were not adequate in 2011 to allow us to complete a unitwide survey. In November 2012, we completed the survey in eastern Unit 20B, but conditions deteriorated and the remainder of Unit 20B was not completed. We used the geospatial population estimator (GSPE) method to conduct the survey (Ver Hoef 2001, 2008; Kellie and DeLong 2006). Previous analyses suggest survey effort and the precision of population estimates are optimized when the survey effort includes approximately 40% low-density and 60% high-density sample units (SU; Kellie and DeLong 2006). We selected a simple random sample of SUs (n = 164) from each stratum using Microsoft Excel® software. Additional SUs (n = 15) were selected to fill in gaps in the coverage. Preliminary studies suggest using a sightability correction factor (SCF) of 1.16–1.25 for moose that were present, but not observed, during the survey using the GSPE method (Boertje et al. 2009). Because an SCF has not been determined in Unit 20B, we used the midpoint of SCF data suggested by Boertje et al. (2009) and applied an SCF of 1.21 to GSPE estimates in Unit 20B to estimate total moose numbers.

In November 2013, snow conditions were adequate in central and western Unit 20B to complete a GSPE survey. We used the same sampling and sightability methodology used in 2012. We surveyed 145 of 425 SUs from eastern and western Unit 20B of which 101 were high density SUs and 44 were low density. To evaluate management objectives, we obtained a unitwide estimate of moose abundance by combining the 2012 population estimate from eastern Unit 20B with the 2013 population estimate for central and western Unit 20B.

Twinning Rate Surveys Twinning rates were estimated from surveys conducted in traditional twinning survey trend count areas in Minto Flats and areas surveyed in central Unit 20B since 2006. Surveys in MFMA consisted of parallel transects flown at approximately ½-mile intervals at ≤500 feet above ground level in PA-18 or Bellanca Scout aircraft by experienced pilots. This method is most effective in MFMA because of the high density of moose and the open habitat. A high proportion of Central Unit 20B is forested, so surveys in central Unit 20B consisted of searching good moose habitat at 500–1,000 feet above ground level in a Bellanca Scout or PA-18. All moose observed were classified as bull; yearling cow; adult cow without a calf; or adult cow with single, twin, or triplet calves. In past years, we terminated surveys and excluded the data if <15% of the cows had calves. Twinning rate was calculated as the proportion of cows with twins or triplets from the sample of all cows with calves.

2012 Twinning Surveys Minto Flats Management Area. East–west transects were flown on 24 May between the Tolovana River and Swanneck Slough to the west and Dunbar Trail to the east beginning at 65°02.9′N and working south until a sample of 50 parturient moose were found or we reached a latitude of 64°55.0′N. The survey was flown with a PA-18 Super Cub. Leaf-out was approximately 80%. Weather, turbulence, and airsickness were not factors. Survey flight time was 2.75 hours.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-3 Central Unit 20B. On 30 May, we used a Bellanca Scout aircraft to search from Fairbanks down Goldstream Creek to Standard Creek road, over Luck Dome to Murphy Dome, up the Chatanika River to the Steese Highway, over Fort Knox gold mine to the Little Chena River, down the Little Chena River to the Chena River, up the Chena River to the flood control project and in the vicinity of Eielson Air Force Base and then down the north side of the Tanana River to Fairbanks. Weather, turbulence and airsickness were not factors in the survey. Total survey time was 4.7 hours.

2013 Twinning Surveys Minto Flats Management Area. East–west transects were flown on 24 May between the Tolovana River and Swanneck Slough to the west and Dunbar Trail to the east beginning at 65°02.9′N and working south until a sample of 50 parturient moose were found or we reached a latitude of 64°55.0′N. The survey was flown with a PA-18 Super Cub. Leaf-out was approximately 50%. Turbulence and airsickness were not factors, but unseasonable warm temperatures (75–89°F) made it hard to locate moose. Many of the moose were found in the more shaded and dense forest or shrubs, likely escaping the heat; therefore they were more difficult to see from the air. Survey flight time was 4.9 hours.

Central Unit 20B. On 30 May, a PA-18 Super Cub aircraft was used to search from Fairbanks down Goldstream Creek to Standard Creek road, over Luck Dome to Murphy Dome, up the Chatanika River to the Steese Highway, over Fort Knox gold mine to the Little Chena River, down the Little Chena River to the Chena River, up the Chena River to the flood control project and in the vicinity of Eielson Air Force Base and then down the north side of the Tanana River to Fairbanks. Weather was 75–80°F, so moose were likely in shaded areas and more difficult to see. Turbulence and airsickness were not factors. Total survey time was 5.0 hours.

MORTALITY We estimated harvest based on harvest reports. This included report data from general season harvest tickets; the MFMA registration permit hunt; and the FMA, Creamer’s Refuge, and central and western Unit 20B antlerless drawing permit hunts. Reminder letters were sent to nonreporting general season hunters, and up to 2 letters and an e-mail were sent to permit holders who failed to report. When size of bulls was reported, we considered bulls with antler spreads of <30 inches to be yearlings. Harvest data were summarized by regulatory year (RY), which begins 1 July and ends 30 June (e.g., RY12 = 1 July 2012–30 June 2013).

We estimated accidental mortality by motor vehicles and trains from Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Alaska Railroad Corporation records. We estimated unreported harvest based on 17.7% unreported harvest (including wounding loss) reported by Gasaway et al. (1992). We estimated illegal and other (defense of life or property, dispatched by DPS or Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] personnel, potlatch, stickdance, and other reported deaths) mortality from DPS and ADF&G records and added an additional estimate of mortality caused by snaring calculated from annual estimates of the posthunt moose population × 0.005361 (estimated mortality rate caused by snares based on a radiocollared sample of moose in Unit 20A).

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-4 HABITAT The most recent browse removal surveys were conducted in March 2010 in MFMA. Data on browse production and removal were estimated using plant sampling methods described by Seaton (2002). No browse removal surveys were conducted in RY11 or RY12.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION POPULATION STATUS AND TREND Population Size Moose numbers have doubled in Unit 20B since the early 1990s. In 1990 the population was estimated at 9,800 moose (1.1 moose/mi2; McNay 1992). The population was estimated at 12,499 moose (1.3 moose/mi2) by 2001 and 16,214 moose (1.7 moose/mi2) in 2003 (Table 1). The population then appeared to stabilize during 2004–2006. In 2008, the population estimate increased again to 17,954 (1.9 moose/mi2) moose. In 2009, the population estimate was 20,173, and the lower end of the 90% confidence interval was above the intensive management population objective of 15,000 moose. During 2000–2009, we measured relatively high productivity and recruitment, as well as low snow winters and high predator (black bear, brown bear, and wolf) harvests in Unit 20B, which further indicated a period of population growth (Seaton 2010). Unitwide surveys were not completed during RY11 or RY12. We combined data collected in 2012 in eastern Unit 20B and 2013 in central and western Unit 20B to obtain a unitwide estimate of 14,057 moose (1.5 moose/mi2). The extremely late spring in 2013 and intentionally high harvest of cow moose likely contributed to the lower population estimate during 2012 and 2013.

Within the 3 geographic zones in Unit 20B, moose numbers in central and western Unit 20B (including MFMA) showed similar increasing trends through 2009 and then a decrease in 2012 and 2013 (Table 1). During 2001–2009, central Unit 20B moose population estimate increased from 4,806 (1.3 moose/mi2) to 6,856 (1.8 moose/mi2) and then decreased to 5,841 (1.5 moose/mi2) in 2013. In western Unit 20B moose numbers increased from 4,562 (1.6 moose/mi2) to 9,742 (3.3 moose/mi2) during 2001–2009 and then decreased to 5,419 (1.8 moose/mi2) in 2013. Population estimates in eastern Unit 20B, however, increased slightly during 2001–2006 and remained stable during 2006–2009 (Table 1). It appears that there might be a slight decrease in the eastern Unit 20B population from 2009 through 2012.

During 2001–2010 the MFMA estimate increased from 2,252 (2.4 moose/mi2) to 4,181 (4.4 moose/mi2) and then decreased to 2,455 (2.6 moose/mi2) in 2013. However, annual estimates of moose densities in MFMA during 2003–2013 were highly variable (Table 1), possibly the result of varying sampling effort, survey conditions and the small size of the area surveyed. The 2010 estimate was the best survey completed in regards to sampling effort. During that survey, 49% of all the sample units in MFMA were surveyed. Therefore our estimate resulted in the lowest 90% confidence interval (±9%) since 2001. However, surveys in MFMA may provide inconsistent results regardless of sampling effort if estimates are influenced by changes in moose distribution and the timing of the October or November migration (P. Valkenburg and R. Boertje, ADF&G wildlife biologists, personal communication to J. Selinger, 2000).

Gasaway et al. (1992) reported that areas of Interior Alaska and Yukon Canada where predators were lightly harvested had densities of 0.1–1.1 moose/mi2. Higher moose densities occurred

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-5 where wolf and/or bear populations were below food-limited levels. Central Unit 20B and MFMA in western Unit 20B have had relatively intensive wolf trapping efforts compared with most of Interior Alaska, including eastern Unit 20B. Black bear harvest is also relatively high in roadside areas of Unit 20B and grizzly bears are rare relative to more remote areas of Alaska. This high predator harvest may have contributed to the increased moose densities in Unit 20B, however, we lack wolf and bear population estimates for this area.

Population Composition Bull:Cow Ratios. The 2012 survey indicated post hunting bull:cow ratios of 40 bulls:100 cows in eastern Unit 20B. The 2013 central and western Unit 20B bull:cow ratios were 24 and 33 bulls:100 cows, respectively (Table 1). The estimated bull:cow ratio was 23:100 in MFMA in 2013.

Historically, bull:cow ratios in most of Unit 20B have exceeded the lower limit of the management objective of ≥30:100, but varied spatially by harvest intensity within the unit. For example, the overall Unit 20B bull:cow ratio averaged 40:100 through the early 1990s (McNay 1992). The less intensively harvested Salcha River drainage had bull:cow ratios of 44:100 (1990) and MFMA had 49:100 (1989) and 47:100 (1994). In contrast, the more intensively harvested central Unit 20B ratio was 28:100 (1990), and the most intensively harvested FMA had 9–14 bulls:100 cows (1989–1994).

Calf:Cow Ratios. Calf:cow ratios were high during 2001–2013 (Table 1). In general, calf:cow ratios tended to be higher in central and western Unit 20B where predation is likely lower, and lower in eastern Unit 20B, where predation is likely higher (Young 2006). This wasn’t the case in the 2012 eastern Unit 20B survey where calf:cow ratio was higher than the ratios found in central and western Unit 20B during 2013. It is unclear whether differences in calf:cow ratios between central-western Unit 20A and eastern Unit 20A reflect actual differences in calf survival or are a spurious result of conducting the moose surveys during different years.

Twinning Rates. Twinning rates in MFMA were relatively stable during 2002–2013 ( x = 24%; range = 13–34%) (Table 2). The MFMA twinning rate was 13% in 2012, but rebounded to 22% in 2013.

The central Unit 20B twinning rate was 4% in 2012, and 6% in 2013. Twinning surveys have been conducted in central Unit 20B since 2006 and have been consistently lower ( x = 7%, range = 2–18) than in MFMA during 2006–2013.

Distribution and Movements Moose are distributed throughout Unit 20B, consisting of nonmigratory and migratory subpopulations (Gasaway et al. 1983). During February–April, some bull and cow moose migrate from the Chena and Salcha river drainages to summer range on the Tanana Flats in Unit 20A. Most remain there for the summer and return to the Unit 20B foothills during August– October. Boertje et al. (2009) estimated that 9% of the moose that calve in the Tanana Flats in Unit 20A had migrated from Unit 20B.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-6 MORTALITY Harvest Season and Bag Limit. Seasons and bag limits in Unit 20B in RY11 and RY12 were as follows:

Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Unit and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge 1 bull with spike–fork or 1 Sep–30 Sep 1 Sep–30 Sep greater by bow and 21 Nov–27 Nov 21 Nov–27 Nov arrow only; or 1 antlerless moose by bow 1 Sep–27 Nov 1 Sep–27 Nov and arrow only, by drawing permit; up to 150 permits may be issued in FMA; a recipient of a drawing permit is prohibited from taking an antlered bull moose in FMA; or 1 antlerless moose by 21–27 Nov (RY11) 21–27 Nov (RY11) muzzleloader only, by 1 Dec–31 Jan (RY12) 1 Dec–31 Jan (RY12) drawing permit; up to 10 permits may be issued in FMA; a recipient of a drawing permit is prohibited from taking an antlered bull moose in FMA.

Remainder of Fairbanks management area. 1 bull with spike–fork or 1 Sep–30 Sep 1 Sep–30 Sep greater antlers by bow and 21 Nov–27 Nov 21 Nov–27 Nov arrow only, or; 1 antlerless moose by bow 1 Sep–27 Nov 1 Sep–27 Nov and arrow only, by drawing permit; up to 150 permits may be issued in FMA; a recipient of a drawing permit is prohibited from taking an antlered bull moose in FMA.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-7 Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Unit and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season Minto Flats management area (RY11) 1 moose by registration 1 Sep–25 Sep No open season permit only or 10 Jan–28 Feb No open season 1 bull with spike–fork or 11 Sep–25 Sep No open season 50-inch antlers, or antlers with ≥4 brow tines on one side.

Minto Flats management area (RY12) 1 bull, or 21 Aug–27 Aug No open season 1 bull with spike–fork or 8 Sep–25 Sep No open season 50-inch antlers, or antlers with ≥4 brow tines on one side; or 1 antlerless moose by 15 Oct–28 Feb No open season registration permit.

Middle fork drainage of Chena River, and Salcha River drainage upstream from and including Goose Creek. 1 bull; or 1 Sep–20 Sep 1 Sep–20 Sep 1 bull by bow and arrow 21 Sep–30 Sep 21 Sep–30 Sep only; or 1 antlerless moose by 15 Aug–15 Nov No open season drawing permit only; up to 300 permits may be issued; a person may not take a calf or cow accompanied by a calf; or 1 moose (RY11) or 1 bull 1 Nov–30 Nov No open season (RY12) by muzzleloader permit.

Southeast of the Moose Creek dike within a half-mile of each side of the Richardson highway except , Harding, and Lost Lake closed areas. 1 bull; or 1 Sep–20 Sep 5 Sep–20 Sep 1 moose by bow and arrow 21 Sep–28 Feb or muzzleloader.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-8 Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Unit and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season Remainder of Unit 20B 1 bull; or 1 Sep–20 Sep 5 Sep–20 Sep 1 antlerless moose by 15 Aug–15 Nov No open season drawing permit only; up to 900 permits may be issued; a person may not take a calf or cow accompanied by a calf.

Alaska Board of Game Actions and Emergency Orders. Emergency Orders — In January 2013, we issued an emergency order to close the registration permit hunt (RM785) for antlerless moose in MFMA because the harvest quota of approximately 100 antlerless moose had been met.

Board of Game Actions Effective 1 July 2011 — At the spring 2010 meeting, the Alaska Board of Game (board) adopted a proposal to have a drawing permit muzzleloader hunt (DM782) for any moose in the middle fork of the Chena River and the Salcha River upstream of Goose Creek. This proposal was intended to add hunting opportunity in an area where the moose population was being underutilized. The board also adopted a proposal to implement a drawing permit hunt (DM783) for muzzleloader or archery within a half-mile of the Richardson Highway from the Moose Creek dike to the boundary with Unit 20D. The bag limit is 1 moose and the intention of the permit is to reduce the number of moose-vehicle collisions. Because the application period for drawing permits is in November and December (prior to the board passing these new hunts), both DM782 and DM783 were first available to hunters during the RY11 hunting season. Also during this meeting, the board adopted an ADF&G proposal to extend the general moose season 5 days in the remainder of Unit 20B. The intent of this proposal was to allow opportunity to hunt this high moose population with a harvestable surplus of bulls that could sustain a 5-day longer season. The season was lengthened from 1–15 September to 1–20 September. Also at the spring 2010 meeting, the board authorized ADF&G to issue up to 900 drawing permits for antlerless moose in Unit 20B and eliminated the prohibition on taking calf moose or cows accompanied by calves in FMA.

Board of Game Actions Effective 1 July 2012 — At the spring 2012 meeting, the board authorized a 21–27 August general season hunt for any bull in the MFMA area and lengthened the September general season to begin 8 September instead of 11 September. The board also authorized a registration permit for a 15 October–28 February antlerless moose season in MFMA. These changes were in response to a proposal that sought to address the limited registration hunts and the process to obtain those permits.

Earlier board actions are summarized by Hollis (2012), Seaton (2010), and Young (2006).

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-9 Harvest by Hunters. General Season — Reported harvest of 605 bulls in RY11 and 652 bulls in RY12 ( x = 629) was higher than the average reported harvest of 546 bulls during RY03–RY10 (Table 3). Most harvest during RY11–RY12 was in central Unit 20B, followed by western Unit 20B, then eastern Unit 20B (Table 3).

Reported harvest in FMA was 30 moose in RY11 and 25 in RY12 ( x = 28; Table 3), a decrease from the RY03–RY10 average of 34. Relatively high harvest in FMA is likely the result of high densities and survival rates of moose in FMA.

Permit Hunts — There were no apparent trends in harvest, effort, or success rates in permit hunts during RY03–RY12 (Table 4). Harvest of antlerless moose increased in drawing permit hunts due to a substantial increase in the number of permits issued. Despite increases in the number of permits issued, success rates in those hunts remained relatively stable. Success rates drastically decreased in the registration hunts in RY12 because the hunt was changed to an unlimited registration permit and the number of permits issued drastically increased.

Hunter Residency and Success. Primarily local residents hunted moose in Unit 20B (Table 3). Participation by nonlocal Alaska residents and nonresidents was relatively low, but has increased most years since RY04. Nonlocal resident (n = 515) and nonresident (n = 192) hunters peaked in RY12.

The average success rate of 21% during RY11 and RY12 was similar to the average (20%) reported during RY03–RY10. During RY11 and RY12, central Unit 20B had the lowest success rates ( x = 19%), followed by eastern Unit 20B ( x = 26%) and then western ( x = 29%). By comparison, success rates during RY03–RY10 were similar in central ( x = 19%), eastern ( x = 23%), and western Unit 20B ( x = 24%). Typically, success rates are lower in areas with higher hunter densities and/or lower bull:cow ratios, such as central Unit 20B, and higher in areas with lower hunter densities and/or higher bull:cow ratios, such as eastern Unit 20B. Hunter success during the general season was typically lower in Unit 20B than elsewhere in Unit 20. For example, during RY03–RY12, 18–23% ( x = 20%) of general season hunters in Unit 20B were successful (Table 3), whereas annual success rates in Units 20A and 20C typically exceed 35% (Hollis 2010, Young 2010).

Harvest Chronology. Most harvest was during 16–20 September ( x = 29%) in RY11 and 11– 15 September and 16–20 September ( x = 25% each) in RY12 (Table 5). Between RY03 and RY10, more bull moose were killed during 1–5 September or during 11–15 September. However, the season was lengthened for the RY11 season, therefore a good portion of the harvest now occurs during the 16–20 of September when the bull moose are more susceptible due to rutting activities.

Transport Methods. Three- or 4-wheelers, followed by highway vehicles, then boats were the primary methods of transportation used by successful hunters (Table 6). Methods of transportation used by successful hunters were relatively consistent during RY03–RY12.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-10 Other Mortality The number of moose killed in accidents with motor vehicles and trains has been substantial in some years (Table 7). The number of moose reported killed on roads in the FMA averaged 72 during RY08–RY12 compared to 84 animals during RY03–RY07. This is an indication that the increased antlerless hunts in the FMA may be helping to reduce roadkill. An additional 57 and 48 moose were reported killed on roads in the remainder of Unit 20B during RY11 and RY12. Generally, few moose are reported killed by trains in Unit 20B (Young 2006). This trend continued during RY07 and RY08 ( x = 9; range 6–12) but no data were available for RY09– RY12.

HABITAT Assessment and Enhancement A 2010 browse removal study in MFMA estimated browse biomass removal at 29.5% (27–32%, 95% CI), a moderately high removal rate (Paragi and Kellie, In prep). This was similar to the 2007 removal rate of 25.1% (20.6–29.6%, 95% CI; Paragi et al. 2008) in central Unit 20B. Short yearling weights in both the MFMA and central Unit 20B were below the threshold of 385 lb (175 kg) used as a signal to begin reducing moose density through liberal antlerless harvest (Boertje et al. 2007). This supported our recommendation to limit population growth through conservative antlerless harvests in portions of western and central Unit 20B during RY09–RY12. Since no browse survey was conducted during RY11 and RY12, and the 2013 population indicates that moose are within the intensive management population objective, it will be prudent to conduct another survey to determine if moose in Unit 20B are utilizing the browse at the same levels or if the levels have changed.

Previous moose habitat enhancement projects in Unit 20B included prescribed fire and promoting regeneration of decadent by planting and crushing willows in recently logged areas, as well as habitat improvement projects for grouse which also benefit moose (Young 2006).

NONREGULATORY MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND NEEDS During RY11–RY12 we continued to collect systematic information on nonhunting mortality of moose because of its potential influence on harvest quotas and population trends. Motor vehicle and railroad kills continue to be important sources of mortality (Table 7). Within the Fairbanks urban area, we also received many complaints about human-moose conflicts, such as moose in gardens or yards, moose attacking dogs in dog yards and along dogsled trails, and moose "trapped" within the confines of the urban area. Besides attempting to reduce moose densities through increased harvest, we continue to work with the public through direct interaction and through the media to reduce nonhunting mortality and human-moose conflicts.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since no population estimates were available during RY11 and RY12, it is unknown if we met the intensive management population objective of 12,000–15,000 moose. However, the unitwide 2012–2013 estimate falls within the objective so it was met during RY13. Reported harvests reached the intensive management objective's lower limit of 600 moose during RY05–RY12, therefore we met this objective in RY11 and RY12. Because the 2012–2013 population estimate

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-11 remains high relative to our population objective, I recommend continuing a conservative antlerless moose harvest (1% of the prehunt moose population) in central Unit 20B and in the MFMA of western Unit 20B to limit population growth, maintain the population within the intensive management population objective, and increase yield to meet the intensive management harvest objective. If unitwide surveys indicate population growth or decline, more aggressive or restrictive antlerless harvest may be necessary to maintain this population level.

During RY11 and RY12 it is unknown if we met our management objective of a posthunting ratio of ≥30 bulls:100 cows unitwide and ≥20 bulls:100 cows in each of the 3 geographic zones (i.e., eastern, central, and western Unit 20B), however we did meet this objective in 2013. This is consistent with surveys conducted during 2001–2009 that indicate we consistently met this management objective, except occasionally in the relatively small (900 mi2) MFMA (e.g. 12 bulls:100 cows in fall 2005). Lower bull:cow ratios in MFMA and FMA (300 mi2) are of less biological concern than in larger areas because these areas are small in relation to the annual home range of moose. If insufficient bulls are available for breeding, cows in estrus can easily move to the periphery or outside the management areas where bull:cow ratios are higher, and bulls seeking females can readily migrate into the management areas. This is particularly true of the smaller FMA. High calf:cow ratios indicate there have been sufficient bull moose in MFMA and FMA to breed estrous cows.

I concur with Dale (1998) that we need to continue to collect annual unitwide population data to better assess the status of the moose population, particularly because we have antlerless hunts in most of western and central Unit 20B, as well as in MFMA and FMA. I recommend continued twinning rate surveys in MFMA and central Unit 20B to evaluate nutritional status of moose in those portions of Unit 20B. Twinning rates and annual population estimates will be necessary to annually reevaluate management objectives and to gain public approval of those management objectives. Also, I recommend an intensive survey of FMA or MFMA on alternating 4–6 year cycles to evaluate the effectiveness of increased antlerless harvests to reduce moose numbers and densities and moose–vehicle collisions. Browse utilization surveys should be conducted every few years to evaluate habitat condition.

REFERENCES CITED Boertje, R. D., M. A. Keech, D. D. Young, K. A. Kellie, and C. T. Seaton. 2009. Managing for elevated yield of moose in Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:314–327.

Boertje, R. D., K. A. Kellie, C. T. Seaton, M. A. Keech, D. D. Young, B. W. Dale, L. G. Adams, and A. R. Aderman. 2007. Ranking Alaska moose nutrition: Signals to begin liberal antlerless harvests. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1494–1506.

Dale, B. W. 1998. Unit 20B moose. Pages 288–299 [In] M. V. Hicks, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1995–30 June 1997. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Study 1.0, Juneau.

Gasaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D. V. Grangaard, D. G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D. G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs 120.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-12 Gasaway, W. C., R. O. Stephenson, J. L. Davis, P. E. K. Shepherd, and O. E. Burris. 1983. Interrelationships of wolves, prey, and man in Interior Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 84.

Hollis, A. L. 2010. Units 20C, 20F, and 25C moose. Pages 366–379 [In] P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007 through 30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 1.0, Juneau.

Hollis, A. L. 2012 (In prep). Unit 20B moose. [In] P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2010–30 June 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Species Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2012, Juneau.

Kellie, K. A., and R. A. DeLong. 2006. Geospatial survey operations manual. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Fairbanks. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/propubs/GSPEOperationsM anual.pdf (Accessed 1 August 2014).

McNay, M. E. 1992. Units 20B and 25C moose. Pages 244–266 [In] S. M. Abbott, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1989–30 June 1991. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Study 1.0, Juneau.

Paragi, T. F., and K. A. Kellie. [In prep]. Winter habitat evaluation for moose management in Interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Final Wildlife Research Report, ADF&G/DWC/WRR, Juneau.

Paragi, T. F., C. T. Seaton, and K. A. Kellie. 2008. Indentifying and evaluating techniques for wildlife habitat management in Interior Alaska: Moose range assessment. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Final Research Technical Report 1 July 2005–30 June 2008, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 5.10, Juneau.

Seaton, C. T. 2002. Winter foraging ecology of moose in the Tanana Flats and Alaska Range foothills. Master's thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Seaton, C. T. 2010. Unit 20B moose. Pages 345–365 [In] P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007–30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 1.0, Juneau.

Ver Hoef, J. M. 2001. Predicting finite populations from spatially correlated data. Pages 93–98 [In] Proceedings of the section on statistics and the environment of the American Statistical Association, 13–17 August 2000, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Ver Hoef, J. M. 2008. Spatial methods for plot-based sampling of wildlife populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 15(1):3–13. doi:10.1007/s10651-007-0035-y

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-13 Young, D. D. 2006. Unit 20B moose. Pages 344–362 [In] P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 1.0, Juneau.

Young, D. D. 2010. Unit 20A moose. Pages 320–344 [In] P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007–30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 1.0, Juneau.

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Anthony L. Hollis Doreen I. Parker McNeill Wildlife Biologist II Management Coordinator

REVIEWED BY: Kalin A. K. Seaton Wildlife Biologist III Laura A. McCarthy Publications Technician II

Please cite any information taken from this section, and reference as: Hollis, A. L. 2014. Unit 20B moose. Chapter 23, pages 23-1 through 23-23 [In] P. Harper and L. A. McCarthy, editors. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2011–30 June 2013 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Species Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6, Juneau.

The State of Alaska is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Contact the Division of Wildlife Conservation at (907) 465-4190 for alternative formats of this publication.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-14

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Table 1. Unit 20B aerial moose fall composition counts and estimated population size, 2001–2013. Estimated Estimated Count Bulls:100 Yearlings: Calves:100 Percent Moose populationb population Moose/mi2 area Year Cows 100 Cowsa Cows calves Adults observed (90% CI) w/SCF = 1.2c w/SCF = 1.2 Unit 20B 2001 33 15 30 18 751 914 12,499 (±19)d 12,499 1.3 Unit 20B 2003 33 23 39 22 399 514 16,214 (±24)d 16,214 1.7 Unit 20B 2004 32 18 42 25 551 730 16,710 (±30)d 16,710 1.7 Unit 20B 2006 29 22 43 26 838 1,127 16,118 (±23)d 16,118 1.6 Unit 20B 2008 28 20 36 24 1,177 1,558 17,954 (±18)d 17,954 1.9 Unit 20B 2009 37 16 36 21 891 1,128 20,173 (±22)d 20,173 2.2 Unit 20Be 2012 and 14,057 (±14)d 14,057 1.5 2013

Easternf 2001 47 15 24 11 271 305 2,454 (±22) 2,945 1.2 Easternf 2006 36 24 46 24 180 236 2,728 (±34) 3,274 1.4 Easternf 2008 31 13 26 20 106 132 3,126 (±31) 3,751 1.5 Easternf 2009 40 16 27 18 155 189 2,954 (±41) 3,574 1.5 Easternf 2012 40 15 36 21 439 566 2,310 (±19) 2,795 1.2

Centralg 2001 27 13 34 26 205 278 4,005 (±25) 4,806 1.3 Centralg 2003 26 21 35 21 191 242 3,995 (±37) 4,794 1.3 Centralg 2004 33 22 46 27 158 216 5,276 (±41) 6,331 1.7 Centralg 2005 26 26 40 24 493 645 5,881 (±18) 7,057 1.8 Centralg 2006 28 22 41 17 328 397 5,451 (±29) 6,541 1.7 - 2014 Centralg 2008 26 24 36 26 627 852 6,197 (±20) 7,436 1.9 Centralg 2009 32 16 33 21 258 328 5,666 (±38) 6,856 1.8 - g 6 Central 2013 24 12 30 19 472 584 4,828 (±17) 5,841 1.5

Westernh 2001 30 16 29 17 274 331 3,802 (±22) 4,562 1.6 Westernh 2006 27 20 44 22 384 494 5,142 (±24) 6,170 2.1 Westernh 2008 27 22 44 23 444 574 5,515 (±19) 6,618 2.2 Westernh 2009 39 16 41 22 478 611 8,051 (±19) 9,742 3.3 h Western 2013 33 12 33 20 386 485 4,479 (±17) 5,419 1.8

Page 23 Page MFMAi,j 2001 30 16 28 17 191 230 1,877 (±21) 2,252 2.4 MFMAj 2003 44 20 36 23 89 116 1,352 (±63) 1,622 1.7 MFMAj 2004 26 11 47 24 302 399 3,447 (±19) 4,136 4.3

- j 15 MFMA 2005 12 12 40 26 296 400 2,937 (±17) 3,524 3.7 j MFMA 2006 19 15 45 28 243 337 2,724 (±23) 3,269 3.4

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Estimated Estimated Count Bulls:100 Yearlings: Calves:100 Percent Moose populationb population Moose/mi2 area Year Cows 100 Cowsa Cows calves Adults observed (90% CI) w/SCF = 1.2c w/SCF = 1.2 MFMAj 2008 30 23 37 18 309 375 2,487 (±20) 2,984 3.1 MFMAj 2009 40 12 40 21 235 298 4,749 (±19) 5,746 6.0 MFMAj 2010 34 20 41 23 1,309 1,709 3,455 (±9) 4,181 4.4 MFMAj 2013 23 8 41 24 189 250 2,029 (±18) 2,455 2.6

FMAk,l 2001 12 13 39 29 70 99 461 (±34) 553 1.7 FMAk,m 2008 25 26 56 31 288 417 417n 500 1.7 a Yearlings:100 cows = Yearling bulls:100 cows × 2. b Geospatial population estimator method (GSPE; Kellie and DeLong 2006). c Preliminary sightability studies suggest a sightability correction factor (SCF) of 1.16 to 1.25 using the GSPE method. d Estimated population and confidence interval are calculated with the SCF. e The 2013 Unit 20B estimate is a combination of data from the 2012 survey from eastern Unit 20B and 2013 survey in central and western Unit 20B. Unitwide composition data are not available for combined data. f Survey area = 2,425 mi2. g Survey area = 3,829 mi2. h Survey area = 2,942 mi2. i Minto Flats management area (MFMA) within western Unit 20B. j Count area = 951 mi2. k Fairbanks management area (FMA). l Survey area = 318 mi2. m Survey area = 293 mi2. n Census, all sample units surveyed. - 2014 - 6

Page 23 Page - 16

Table 2. Results of twinning rate surveys for moose in Unit 20B (Minto Flats management area and central Unit 20B), 2002–2013. Cows Year Date(s) w/Single calf w/Twins Total % Twinsa 2002b 29 May 38 10 48 21 2003b 29 May 40 10 50 20 2004b 25 May 61 21 82 26 2005b 25 May 39 15 54 28 2006b 24 May 44 15 59 25 2006c 24–26 May 23 5 28 18 2007b 26 May 47 16 63 25 2007c 29–31 May 29 1 30 3 2008b 24 May 60 20 80 25 2008c 29–31 May 55 7 62 11 2009b 25 May 46 16 62 26 2009c 28–29 May 50 1 51 2 2010b 25 May 42 9 51 18 2010c 28–29 May 28 1 29 3 2011b 25 May 33 17 50 34 2011c 25–26 May 22 2 24 8 2012b 24 May 55 8 63 13 2012c 30 May 26 1 27 4 2013b 29 May 39 11 50 22 2013c 30 May 16 1 17 6 a Percentage of cows with calves that had twins. b Minto Flats management area. c Central Unit 20B.

Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-17

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Table 3. Unit 20B moose huntera residency and success, regulatory yearsb 2003–2012. Successful Unsuccessful Area/ Localc Nonlocal % Localc Nonlocal Total Regulatory year resident resident Nonresident Unk Total Successful resident resident Nonresident Unk Total hunters Eastern Unit 20B –– Uniform Coding Unitsd (UCUs) 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 684) 2003 58 1 10 0 69 20 235 22 15 0 272 341 2004 49 6 11 3 69 22 205 10 20 4 239 308 2005 77 11 8 0 96 25 243 13 24 1 281 377 2006 76 6 7 0 89 24 235 29 15 5 284 373 2007 60 14 8 4 86 24 222 24 22 2 270 356 2008 65 13 6 4 88 26 206 20 12 10 248 336 2009 54 15 6 1 76 23 208 36 7 4 255 331 2010 54 14 6 2 76 22 204 38 15 11 268 344 2011 68 7 9 2 86 25 200 39 11 9 259 345 2012 72 13 11 4 100 27 211 35 17 1 264 364

Central Unit 20B –– (UCUs 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 484, 485,486,487, 501, 583, 584) 2003 232 33 23 0 288 19 1,099 94 55 5 1,253 1,541 2004 203 18 25 5 251 19 916 56 57 22 1,051 1,302 2005 211 21 29 0 261 17 1,070 97 70 8 1,245 1,506 2006 239 25 28 2 294 18 1,110 109 76 8 1,303 1,597 2007 216 31 33 0 280 18 1,072 118 63 14 1,267 1,547 2008 276 45 20 19 360 23 1,005 100 44 62 1,211 1,571 2009 261 42 25 1 329 21 1,093 106 48 26 1,273 1,602 2010 183 21 18 4 226 17 937 118 48 21 1,124 1,350 - 2014 2011 227 37 23 4 291 21 838 130 48 27 1,043 1,334 2012 203 36 39 7 285 17 1,088 159 82 49 1,378 1,663 -

6 Western Unit 20B –– (UCUs 101, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 210)

2003 65 19 3 0 87 21 244 69 17 1 331 418 2004 56 16 6 2 80 22 214 51 13 4 282 362 2005 53 15 8 0 76 20 233 47 15 1 296 372 2006 57 16 5 0 78 20 241 63 8 4 316 394 2007 67 20 8 1 96 23 247 62 12 1 322 418 2008 91 23 6 1 121 28 216 78 12 8 314 435

Page 23 Page 2009 83 35 11 1 130 29 245 58 15 5 323 453 2010 80 29 4 3 116 25 246 98 7 5 356 472 2011 69 45 10 4 128 30 196 74 9 10 289 417 2012 107 48 4 4 163 28 295 111 10 4 420 583 - 18

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Successful Unsuccessful Area/ Localc Nonlocal % Localc Nonlocal Total Regulatory year resident resident Nonresident Unk Total Successful resident resident Nonresident Unk Total hunters FMAe –– general archery huntf (UCUs 0212, 0213, 0300, 0301, 0401, 0402, 0403, 0501; archery only) 2003 54 5 1 0 60 2004 31 0 2 0 33 2005 18 2 1 0 21 2006 21 1 1 0 23 2007 21 2 0 0 23 2008 26 1 0 0 27 2009 48 2 0 0 50 2010 33 1 2 0 36 2011 28 2 0 0 30 2012 24 1 0 0 25

MFMAg –– general hunt (UCUs 0201, 0205, 0210; Nonresident hunters and antlerless harvest censored) 2003 39 10 0 0 49 30 96 19 0 0 115 164 2004 28 8 0 0 36 25 90 16 0 0 106 142 2005 28 10 0 0 38 25 100 17 0 0 117 155 2006 33 11 0 0 44 25 102 30 0 1 133 177 2007 43 8 0 0 51 28 108 25 0 0 133 184 2008 45 11 0 0 56 30 102 26 0 0 128 184 2009 36 14 0 1 51 29 107 16 0 3 126 177 2010 39 15 0 2 56 25 121 45 0 3 169 225 2011 36 13 0 2 51 -

2014 2012 51 15 0 3 69

Unit 20B remainder, general hunt (Includes FMA general archery hunt, but excludes MFMA) - 6 2003 358 47 38 0 443 18 1,775 198 99 8 2,080 2,523 2004 324 41 45 13 423 20 1,479 129 101 35 1,744 2,167 2005 368 43 47 0 458 19 1,690 170 114 14 1,988 2,446 2006 394 45 42 2 483 19 1,784 203 109 17 2,113 2,596 2007 350 67 54 1 472 18 1,772 241 118 19 2,150 2,622 2008 440 93 33 24 590 22 1,653 221 81 90 2,045 2,635

2009 451 116 54 3 624 22 1,835 262 87 44 2,228 2,852 2010 364 71 44 8 487 19 1,684 301 84 47 2,116 2,603 Page 23 Page 2011 403 95 48 8 554 22 1,557 285 84 52 1,978 2,532 2012 410 99 48 16 573 19 1,866 348 134 73 2,421 2,994

- 19

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Successful Unsuccessful Area/ Localc Nonlocal % Localc Nonlocal Total Regulatory year resident resident Nonresident Unk Total Successful resident resident Nonresident Unk Total hunters All general hunts 2003 397 57 38 0 492 18 1,871 217 99 8 2,195 2,687 2004 352 49 45 13 459 20 1,569 145 101 35 1,850 2,309 2005 396 53 47 0 496 19 1,790 187 114 14 2,105 2,601 2006 427 56 42 2 527 19 1,886 233 109 18 2,246 2,773 2007 394 75 57 2 528 19 1,879 265 119 19 2,282 2,810 2008 486 104 33 25 648 23 1,755 247 82 91 2,175 2,823 2009 487 130 54 4 675 22 1,942 278 87 47 2,354 3,029 2010 403 86 44 10 543 19 1,805 346 84 50 2,285 2,828 2011 439 108 48 10 605 22 1,640 318 84 55 2,097 2,702 2012 461 114 58 19 652 20 2,025 401 134 76 2,636 3,288 a Excludes drawing, registration, and Tier II permit hunt harvest. b Regulatory year begins 1 July and ends 30 June (e.g., regulatory year 2003 = 1 July 2003–30 June 2004). c Residents of Unit 20. d Uniform coding units (UCU) are a numbering system used to differentiate drainages in a game management unit. e Fairbanks management area (FMA), due to the nature of the harvest reporting system, unsuccessful bowhunters cannot be extracted from the data, thus unsuccessful archers are not available for the FMA archery-only hunts. f Subtracted number of bulls reported harvested by bow and arrow on Eielson Air Force Base (in UCU 0501, but outside FMA). g Minto Flats management area (MFMA).

- 2014 - 6

Page 23 Page - 20

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Table 4. Unit 20B moose harvest data by permit hunt, regulatory yearsa 2003–2012. Did not Regulatory Permits Successful Unsuccessful Did not report Hunt year issued hunters (%) hunters (%) hunt (%) (%) Bulls (%) Cows (%) Harvest Drawing 2003 100 28 (35) 53 (65) 17 (17) 2 (2) 0 (0) 28 (100) 28 hunts 2004 160 50 (38) 80 (62) 24 (16) 6 (4) 1 (2) 49 (98) 50 2005 159 38 (32) 81 (68) 39 (25) 1 (1) 2 (5) 39 (95) 41 2006 360 158 (53) 142 (47) 55 (15) 5 (1) 11 (7) 147 (93) 158 2007 361 127 (42) 169 (58) 65 (18) 0 (0) 8 (6) 119 (94) 127 2008 185 63 (40) 93 (60) 29 (16) 0 (0) 0 (0) 63 (100) 63 2009 867 254 (41) 362 (59) 247 (29) 4 (1) 1 (0) 253 (100) 254 2010 851 209 (33) 422 (67) 216 (26) 4 (1) 8 (4) 201 (96) 209 2011 1,276 309 (32) 645 (68) 318 (25) 4 (1) 15 (5) 294 (95) 309 2012 1,250 286 (33) 593 (67) 369 (30) 2 (1) 15 (5) 271 (95) 286

Registration 2003 0 hunts 2004 110 62 (76) 20 (24) 2 (2) 26 (24) 30 (48) 32 (52) 62 2005 115 64 (65) 35 (35) 16 (14) 0 (0) 26 (41) 38 (60) 64 2006 193 104 (64) 59 (36) 21 (11) 9 (5) 45 (43) 59 (57) 104 2007 197 107 (64) 60 (36) 29 (15) 1 (1) 46 (43) 61 (57) 107 2008 211 140 (77) 43 (23) 26 (12) 2 (1) 69 (49) 71 (51) 140 2009 210 142 (77) 43 (23) 22 (11) 3 (1) 65 (46) 77 (54) 142 2010 230 150 (75) 50 (25) 25 (11) 5 (2) 78 (52) 72 (48) 150 2011 237 132 (71) 54 (29) 42 (18) 9 (4) 54 (41) 78 (59) 132 2012 825 140 (39) 217 (61) 441 (55) 27 (3) 18 (13) 122 (87) 140 - 2014 Tier II hunts 2003 100 46 (58) 30 (38) 21 (22) 3 (3) 23 (50) 23 (50) 46

-

6 Total for all 2003 200 74 (47) 83 (53) 38 (19) 5 (3) 23 (31) 51 (69) 74 permit hunts 2004 270 112 (47) 100 (53) 26 (11) 32 (12) 31 (28) 81 (72) 112 2005 274 105 (48) 113 (52) 55 (20) 1 (1) 28 (27) 77 (73) 105 2006 553 262 (56) 201 (44) 76 (14) 14 (3) 56 (21) 206 (79) 262 2007 558 234 (51) 229 (49) 94 (17) 1 (1) 54 (23) 180 (77) 234 2008 396 203 (60) 136 (40) 55 (14) 2 (1) 69 (34) 134 (66) 203

2009 1,077 396 (48) 405 (52) 269 (25) 7 (1) 66 (17) 330 (83) 396 2010 1,081 359 (43) 472 (57) 241 (22) 9 (1) 86 (24) 273 (76) 359 Page 23 Page 2011 1,513 441 (39) 699 (61) 360 (24) 13 (1) 69 (16) 372 (84) 441 2012 2,075 426 (34) 810 (66) 810 (40) 29 (1) 33 (8) 393 (92) 426 a Regulatory year begins 1 July and ends 30 June (e.g., regulatory year 2003 = 1 July 2003–30 June 2004). -

21

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Table 5. Unit 20B moose harvesta chronology percent by month/day, regulatory yearsb 2003–2012. Regulatory Harvest chronology percent by month/day year 9/1–9/5 9/6–9/10 9/11–9/15 9/16–9/20 9/21–9/25 Unk/Other n 2003 24 26 35 8 1 7 492 2004 33 27 29 6 2 4 459 2005 38 22 27 6 2 4 496 2006 35 20 31 5 2 6 527 2007 27 24 36 8 2 4 528 2008 37 25 29 5 2 3 648 2009 33 29 27 8 2 2 664 2010 29 22 35 8 3 3 543 2011 21 17 24 29 5 4 605 2012 22 20 25 25 4 4 652 a Excludes drawing, registration, and Tier II permit hunt harvest. b Regulatory year begins 1 July and ends 30 June (e.g., regulatory year 2003 = 1 July 2003–30 June 2004).

Table 6. Unit 20B moose harvesta percent by transport method, regulatory yearsb 2003–2012. Harvest percent by transport method Regulatory 3- or Highway Other/ -

2014 year Airplane Horse Boat 4-wheeler Snowmachine Other ORV vehicle Airboat Unknown n 2003 4 0 20 28 0 4 36 3 5 492 -

6 2004 4 0 16 30 0 3 39 3 4 459 2005 4 0 21 31 2 5 34 2 3 496 2006 3 1 19 38 1 2 31 3 4 527 2007 3 1 17 35 0 4 33 3 2 528 2008 3 0 17 37 0 6 33 2 2 655

2009 2 0 20 40 0 4 28 1 2 675 2010 3 0 21 40 0 5 26 3 2 543 Page 23 Page 2011 3 0 19 39 0 5 26 3 5 605 2012 5 0 22 35 0 5 27 3 3 652 a Excludes drawing, registration, and Tier II permit hunt harvest. - b 22 Regulatory year begins 1 July and ends 30 June (e.g., regulatory year 2003 = 1 July 2003–30 June 2004).

Chapter Moose 23: management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR Table 7. Estimate of Unit 20B moose harvesta and accidental death, regulatory yearsb 2001–2012. Harvest by hunters Accidental death Reported Estimated Roadc Regulatory Illegal/ Unit 20B Combined year M F Unk Total Unreportedd Other Total FMAe remainder Total Trainf Total total 2001 531 53 6 590 104 37g 141 72 50 122 9 131 862 2002 725 61 2 788 139 47g 186 118 71 189 12 201 1,175 2003 549 52 2 603 107 50g 157 87 64 151 13 164 924 2004 488 84 1 573 101 56g 157 95 62 157 30 187 917 2005 519 77 4 600 106 109h 215 79 57 136 6 142 957 2006 571 212 7 790 140 105h 245 88 68 156 8 164 1,199 2007 581 183 5 769 136 93h 229 73 56 129 12 141 1,139 2008 718 135 4 857 152 112h 264 79 67 146 6 152 1,273 2009 664 264 7 935 165 90 255 79 72 151 0i 151 1,341 2010 558 278 1 837 148 80 228 78 59 137 0i 137 1,202 2011 672 373 2 1,047 185 101 286 60 57 117 0i 117 1,450 2012 681 396 2 1,079 191 104 295 65 48 113 0i 113 1,487 a Includes general, registration and permit hunt harvest. b Regulatory year begins 1 July and ends 30 June (e.g., regulatory year 2001 = 1 July 2001–30 June 2002). c Documented kills; actual number killed by vehicles is certainly greater. d Based on 17.7% unreported harvest (including wounding loss) estimated by Gasaway et al. (1992). e Fairbanks management area. f

- Confirmed dead between Alaska Railroad mileposts 411.8 and 470.0; “Missing” (moose hit but not recovered) are not included. Data provided by the Alaska 2014 Railroad. g Includes illegal, defense of life or property, dispatched, potlatch, stickdance, and other reported deaths.

- h 6 Includes illegal, defense of life or property, dispatched, potlatch, stickdance, and other reported deaths, plus an additional estimate of mortality caused by snaring calculated from annual estimates of the posthunt moose population × 0.005361 (estimated mortality rate caused by snares based on radiocollared sample of moose in Unit 20A). i No data available for these years.

Page 23 Page - 23